Guest Blog, from EHS person, addressing the myth where EMF’s too low energy to break chemical bonds is automatically equaled to ‘no meaningful effects possible’

Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of person who is EHS and who is preferring to be known only by initials ‘MRE’. Publication of these opinions on BRHP blog site does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions.

Publication of this, and other Guest Blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.

********************

When I became aware that the possible source of my health problems could be EMF and started to look for information in PubMed and other reliable sources I soon got amazed that there was so much and so persistent insistence in the “ionizing vs. non-ionizing” debate for discrediting the idea of biological effects of EMF. I found the “non-ionizing” argument has a flaw.

Search of the published studies has remarkably shown that there was apparently little attention paid to the possible effects of high doses of electromagnetic waves/fields, within the range of the lower frequencies, on the weak chemical bonds of bio-molecules. There are large gaps in the knowledge, and even more when very short time intervals might be involved, for instance femtoseconds. Studying these gaps could prove fertile for better understanding essential biophysics and biochemical processes and unsuspected impacts on the health.

I have tried to call the attention of several scientists to examine effects of EMF on weak chemical bonds but they either had no funding available or they did not reply to my communications.

To the best of my knowledge research in this field is still quite pending.

I am aware that the force necessary for breaking chemical bonds must be standard and generalized for biological creatures submitted to the same level of irradiation, these are physical parameters which do not fluctuate but derive from the laws of physics. I made this objection to myself based on the obvious evidence that not everyone gets sick from EMF and that the idea that disrupting weak chemical forces might account for at least some of the disturbances associated to EMF radiation looked rather implausible: chemical bonds do not differ depending on individuals, they are a fixed parameter for everything alive.

However, what can make the difference is the ability for a living creature to sense and to warn about a disruptive event and to repair the consequences of the disruption and that might just represent the difference between having or not symptoms and overreactions, of feeling sick or not.

It is obvious that whatever happens (if anything) when a cell or full organism is submitted to the effects of a phone base station for instance can be more or less easily repaired since there are no obvious casualties in front of them. But some people, including me, feel that something goes wrong at those moments, perhaps only transient and temporary but noticeable for the coming hours or days. Since I am aware now of the possible link between EMF and health complaints my appreciations may appear unreliable from a scientific point of view, even to myself. However, I also have events where I was not aware of the presence of EMF and yet I strongly reacted to them; or I thought I was exposed despite feeling nothing wrong and it turned out that the place in question was surprisingly clean from radiation. It is from the perspective of a thinking and talking “guinea pig” that these lines are written.

Water is essential for all and every biochemical process. Water molecules attached by hydrogen bonds to each other, to proteins and different bio-molecules and submitted to microwaves could suffer distortions in their spatial configurations and if these are significant enough that would require constant rearrangements, eventually triggering some alarm signal within the nervous system of very sensitive persons. I interpret my transient nausea and frequent airways symptoms as possible consequences of this mechanism.

The same goes for the weak van der Waals forces. Certain processes taking place inside tissues easily reached by the EMF used in telecommunications could be disturbed at levels involving weak bonds. Healthy organisms would quickly repair them, otherwise they would not survive. The constant molecular metabolism would require a high consumption of energy. Eventually, it should be possible to observe an otherwise unjustified high metabolism rate as an indirect indication that something unusual is going on in response to EHS exposure.

Constant alterations in the functioning of cells cause also long lasting consequences. It is known that a moderate exposure to radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing) protects from a number of varied insults happening afterwards, including higher levels of the same radiation. This points to the obvious reflection that EM exposures have some noticeable biological effects.

I would like to point out to what looks like another missing research in the hope that someone with knowledge, technical means and financing might feel the call. One of the capital arguments against the recognition of the condition “electro-sensitivity” is the evidence that this people do not seem to be able to distinguish between the provocation with real and sham EMF. Such studies have a heavy weight in the revisions of EMF literature and in the policies of the authorities concerned with deployment of technologies emitting EMF and what they might do to their users.

However, I find no research where the laboratory wave generators used in provocations (in other studies too) are carefully assessed in order to make sure that they really produce waves with identical architecture and characteristics as the ones emitted in real life by commercial devices, phones, base stations and the like. If sometime the effects of EMF are to be thoroughly evaluated the way persons, animals or cells are exposed to challenges should be quite standardized after carrying extensive research without encountering too many conflicting results. And the exposure protocols should reflect what humans encounter in everyday life, for instance complex mixtures and long exposures. This is far from being the case. Until then those who deny that EMF may have a negative impact on the biological entities are simply showing their disregard for the principles of the scientific method and depending on who they are may be putting health at risk.

4 thoughts on “Guest Blog, from EHS person, addressing the myth where EMF’s too low energy to break chemical bonds is automatically equaled to ‘no meaningful effects possible’

  1. Thanks CZ for your comment. When I say that there are no casualties in front of cell towers I mean that they do not happen in an absolutely obvious, evident and massive way. Not that there are NO casualties at all.

    Not everybody appears to experience health problems due to EMF. (my own partner does not seem to be affected until now, and I insist in the term “seems”). I know that there are thousands of studies from different sorts showing negative effects of the EMF, and I can think of quite some areas of research that are still unexplored and might eventually show even more effects to add up to the long list. But an entry in this blog as a guest must be quite concise and direct and it must skip the information that most people reading it will be familiar with. There are different vulnerabilities depending on the varied abilities of organisms to deal with stresses.

    Chemical bonds and their eventual disruption stand at the very BASE of the potential effects of EMF.

  2. the rest of my sentence “Industry would say” is: that unless people are falling over dead next to cell towers that any effects happening are easily repaired.

  3. Dear EHS person,
    “It is obvious that whatever happens (if anything) when a cell or full organism is submitted to the effects of a phone base station for instance can be more or less easily repaired since there are no obvious casualties in front of them.”
    But you are wrong. Areas where base stations go in have science showing increase in heart attacks and cancers and memory problems of people living there. This is not a “sudden death ray” result, but the impacts are documented. Industry would say Please read the science at Environmental Health Trust, Power Watch and Physicians for Safe Technology, etc. It might help to read the documents from the current lawsuit against the FCC by the Environmental Health Trust for a sense of the science showing harm. See also the list of science submitted to the FCC in 2013 (!) by Dr. Paul Dart. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520940903.pdf
    This is not only about cell “bonds” but an array of other biological impacts, some of which may cause symptoms.
    Thank you.

  4. Darius, if you would like to provide DRM with my contact details, I will provide data that shows that people can tell when a signal is real and sham, my personal results 83%, sensitive group as a whole 70.5% chance =50% when they do the maths correctly,

    Extract from guest blog
    One of the capital arguments against the recognition of the condition “electro-sensitivity” is the evidence that this people do not seem to be able to distinguish between the provocation with real and sham EMF. Such studies have a heavy weight in the revisions of EMF

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.